The answer is . . . That remains to be seen.

The House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans considered its response to the Communion and issued a statement. What was asked of it? The Joint Standing Committee (JSC) for the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, in its press release, noted that the ECUSA bishops were asked to respond to specific requests.

The JSC wrote: The primates had requested clarification on the status of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention, and whether this did in fact reflect the request of the Windsor Report for a moratorium on the election and consecration of candidates for the episcopate who were living in a sexual relationship outside of Christian marriage.

The bishops responded by saying: We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election Of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." Is this a clarification? It does quote the relevant passage of the resolution and tell us that it says so. Will anyone abide by it? That remains to be seen. As yet, it seems doubtful to me, given that several non-chaste homosexuals have been nominated for bishop since this resolution was first passed.

The JSC wrote: Secondly, the primates had asked that the Bishops, as the chief liturgical officers in their dioceses, should mutually undertake not to offer public liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions.

The bishops responded by saying: We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions. It is a good and welcome statement, but is this a moratorium? Will, for example, Bishop Bruno of Los Angeles continue to split hairs by authorizing the clergy of his diocese to continue to bless same sex unions (as he has done himself) while at the same time not authorizing rites they use for same sex blessings? And will discipline be exercised against those who violate this "moratorium"? That remains to be seen.

The JSC wrote: Thirdly, the primates had offered suggestions for the sort of pastoral care which could be offered in a way which enabled interventions from other provinces to cease. I would add that one part that the JSC missed in connection with this issue is that the primates also insisted that the lawsuits against departing parishes should stop .

The bishops responded by saying: We commend our Presiding Bishop's plan for episcopal visitors. [and] We deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end. Given that the presiding Bishop's plan (which is the warmed over version of her plan put forward right after her election) was not composed in consultation with those it is supposed to serve, nor even the ones who were to administer it, and given that it was already found unsatisfactory by both those it is supposed to serve as well as the primates, and given that the house has enthusiastically rejected the proposal of the primates for alternative oversight (which would enable uninvited intervention to stop) what is the point of the bishops' statements? That remains to be seen.

Of course, the bishops also felt the need to add things to their statement like: We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received an invitation to the conference. We also note that the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate. We share the Archbishop's desire and encourage our Presiding Bishop to offer our assistance as bishops in this endeavor. It is our fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation.

What will be the impact of all this? That remains to be seen.

Update: I was taken aback that the secular press seemed unimpressed by the clarity (or lack thereof) in the bishops' clarifications for the Anglican Communion. Things did not seem so easy in "the Big Easy." Video of the press conference in New Orleans is here, with questions beginning at 9:15 minutes in.